محدودیت ها و شرایط دعوای مشتق سهامداران اقلیت در حقوق انگلیس و حقوق رومی ژرمن: قانون، رویه و اصلاحات پیشنهادی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموختۀ کارشناسی ارشد حقوق شرکتها، دانشگاه شهرکرد، شهرکرد، ایران

2 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهرکرد، شهرکرد، ایران

3 استادیار گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اراک، اراک، ایران

چکیده

سهامداران یک شرکت مدیریت شرکت را به گروهی از مدیران به امانت می‌گذارند. سهامداران به منظور حفظ ارزش سهامشان و حق آنها برای دریافت سود، ابزارهای خاصی را برای نفوذ بر روی سهام حفظ می‌کنند. به طور معمول اعمال نفوذ آنها از طریق بیان نظرات و اخذ آرا در مجامع عمومی صاحبان سهام صورت می‌گیرد. با این حال، ابزارهای نفوذ دیگری نیز وجود دارد که یکی از آنها اقامه دعوای مشتق است. این دعوی علیه مدیران است که توسط سهامداران اقلیت به نمایندگی از شرکت مطرح می‌شود. در مواردی که شرکتی به دلیل تخلف مدیر متحمل خسارت شده است، شرکت حق دارد علیه مدیر اقدام کند، اما معمولاً تمایلی به انجام آن ندارد. دعوای مشتق سهامداران را قادر می‌سازد تا علیه مدیران متخلف اقدام قضایی کنند.
نظام های کامن‌لا، رومی ژرمنی و همچنین ایران در حمایت از سهامداران اقلیت برآمده‌اند و از راهکارهای گوناگونی بهره‌برداری کرده‌اند. یکی از نظام‌هایی که در دعوای مشتق خلاقانه‌تر عمل کرده است نظام کامن‌لا می‌باشد. پژوهش حاضر به مشکلات و قواعدی می‌پردازد که حقوق سهامداران اقلیت را به خطر انداخته است و از قضا این قواعد در نظام‌های رومی ژرمنی نیز مشاهده شده است. اصلاح قانون تجارت در ایران سبب توسعه‌ی اعمال دعوای مشتق شده است که این روند تدریجی نشان می‌دهد همواره برخی قوانین و مقررات نیاز به بازنگری مجدد دارد. پژوهش حاضر با بهره‌گیری از رویکردی مقایسه‌ای در دو نظام کامن لا و نظام رومی ژرمنی توصیه‌هایی را به قانونگذار ایران می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Restrictions and Conditions of Minority Derivative Litigation in British and Roman-German Law: Proposed law, procedure and amendments

نویسندگان [English]

  • Masoumeh Javid 1
  • Mehdi Ashouri 2
  • Hossein KAVIAR 3
1 LL.M in Corporate law, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Arak University, Arak, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The shareholders of a company entrust the day-to-day management of the company to a group of managers. In order to maintain the value of their shares and their right to receive dividends, shareholders maintain certain tools to influence the shares. They are usually influenced by expressing their opinions and obtaining votes in the general meetings of shareholders. However, there are other tools of influence, one of which is derivative litigation. This is a lawsuit filed against the directors by the minority shareholders on behalf of the company. In cases where the company has suffered damages due to the manager's misconduct, the company has the right to take action against the manager, but is usually reluctant to do so. Derivative litigation enables shareholders to take legal action against delinquent managers.

Common law, Roman Germanic systems and Iran have adopted different approaches to protect minority shareholders. But the common law system acted more flexible and more complete in this case. Implementation of the common law rules in the Roman Germanic countries demand some conditions that must be included in Roman Germanic law. The gradual process of regulatory reform in Iran, the possibility of litigation derived expanded and some of the rules and regulations need to be revised again. This article offers a comparative approach to the legislator.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • derivative claims
  • rights of minority shareholders
  • common law system
  • the Roman Germanic system
  • Iran

مراجع

Berle, A., Means, Gardiner. (1933). The Modern Corporation and Private Property, New York, Harcourt Braced &world.
Boyle, A. J. (2004). Minority Shareholders Remedies, London: Cambridge University Press.
Bradley, Sarah. (2012). Nova Scotia Companies Act & Commentary, Markham, Ontario: Lexisnemis Canada.
Eskini, R. (1998). Commercial Law, Vol. 2, Samt Pub. (In Persian)
Gelter, Martin. (2012). Why do Shareholder Derivative Suits Remain Rare in Continental Europe? (February 7, 2012). Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol. 37, no. 3, 2012, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2000814, ECGI - Law Working Paper No. 190/2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2000814 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2000814
Ghorbani, M. (2007). Derivative Lawsuit: A Comparative Study of American, British, and Iranian Law, Law and Politics Research, 9 (22). (In Persian)
Griggs, Lynden. (2002). A Statutory Derivative Action: Lessons That May Be Learnt From its Past, University of Western Sydney Law, 6 (1).
Hollington Q.C, Robin. (2004). Hollington on Shareholders' Rights, Fourth Edition, Sweet and Maxwell.
Igor Sergiiovych, Iushchenko. (2012). Protecting Minority Shareholders in Civil and Common Law Systems: Canadian, Ukrainian and German Examples, LLM Thesis, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University.
Issaei Tafreshi, M. (1999). Analytical Study on Company Law, Vol. 1, Tarbiat Modares Pub. (In Persian)
Issaei Tafreshi, M., Amirtaymoori, S., Nasiri, M., Shahabzinia, M. (2015). The Concept of Derivative Action and Its Exceptional Feature (A Comparative Study in English, American, French and Iranian Law). Comparative Law Researches, 18 (4) :97-123 . (In Persian)
Iushchenko, Igor. (2012). Protecting Minority Shareholders in Civil and Common Law Systems: Canadian, Ukrainian and German Examples (August 25, 2012). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2271323 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2271323
Keay, A., Loughrey, J. (2008). Something old, something new, something borrowed: an analysis of the new derivative action under the Companies Act 2006, LQR 469.
Kershaw, David. (2013). The Rule in Foss v Harbottle is Dead; Long Live the Rule in Foss v Harbottle (January 30, 2013). LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 5/2013, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2209061 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2209061
Lightman,D. (2011).Two Aspects of the statutory derivative claim, Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 142.
Mollett, Scott H. (2009). Derivative Lawsuits Outside of Their Cultural Context: The Divergent Examples of Italy and Japan (April 19, 2009). University of San Francisco Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1636496
Nance, Frawley. (2007). The cost of bringing a statutory derivative action in Australia – is it time to reconsider the terms of section 242 of the Corporations Act 2001? Corporate Law Teachers Conference (Deakin University, Melbourne) 4-6 February 2007.
Pasban, M.R. (2000). Responsibility of Directors in Corporate Failures in International Law, Public Law Researsh, 2(3), 39-65. (In Persian)
Pasban, M., Jahanian, M. (2013). Derivative Litigation and Its Procedure: A Comparative Study of Iranian and British Law, Private Law Research, 2(4), 85-108. (In Persian)
Reisberg, Arad. (2008). Multiple Derivative Actions (September 26, 2008). Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 125, p. 209, 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1274271
Reisberg, Arad. (2009). Derivative Claims Under the Companies Act 2006: Much Ado about Nothing? Rationality In Company Law: Essays In Honour Of Dd Prentice, J. Armour, J. Payne, eds., Hart Publishing, 2009, University College London Law Research Paper No. 09-02, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1092629
Sheikh, Saleem. (2008). A Guide to the Companies Act 2006, London: Routledge-Cavendish.
Vinnik, O. (2000). On the Question about the Improvement of the Business Associations in Ukraine, 9 Pravo Ukraini.
Welling, Bruce. (1991). Corporate Law in Canada ‐ the Governing Principles, 2nd ed, Scribblers Publishing.
West, Mark D. (2000). Why Shareholders Sue: The Evidence from Japan (November 2000). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=251012 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.251012
Zhang, Zhong. (2011). The Shareholder Derivative Action and Good Corporate Governance in China: Why the Excitement is Actually for Nothing, Pacific Basin Law Journal, 28.

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 18 آذر 1399
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 07 دی 1399
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 16 اسفند 1399

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار